The British Empire

[Verbose]

And while some did kick back, we kicked back even harder.

Yeah well, in many cases it was first the Welsh, Irish and Scots who did the kicking (often of each other) at the instigation of the English. (I.e. an abbreviation of the history of Britain.)

Later the Brits could all lean back ensemble as the Indians and other assorted nationalities did the kicking on their behalf.

You can also make the argument that the British had a real knack for picking kickable targets as well as the time and place, whereas for instance the French didn't. (Flaubert in the 1850's wrote about Egypt:
"It's only a matter of time before Britain gobbles this country up at will, in which case, of course, we French will go get ourselves killed in the mountains of Syria." That's how it eventually happened too.)

It's not all about leg muscles you know.

 

[thisispete]

You can also make the argument that the British had a real knack for picking kickable targets as well as the time and place, whereas for instance the French didn't.

With the exception of Afghanistan, I think you're right.

My biggest question though is whether the empire was, on balance, a positive or negative thing for those involved. I lean towards the former. The British laid down trade and communications networks - and although they were to further commercial ends, they provided a backbone for countries on independence. There's also the institutional legacy. It is noted here that since World War II, two thirds of Third World countries that established parliamentary governments made the successful transition to democracy. None that were established under presidential models did so without coups and other constitutional breakdowns.

I doubt whether India would have emerged as a single nation without first going through a period of British control - or at least amalgamation under a single flag, regardless of the colonising power. But given all that violence during partition, I don't know if it was worth the price. The most glaring injustice was slavery and racial oppression. On the other hand, decolonisation was not as painful as it could have been.

 

[DAv2003]

I am not saying they did not defeat plenty of mighty empires. I am saying that the 'all conquering' image is one that isn't exactly the best to pass on to the next generation.

What about the fact that the British Empire presided over the greatest period of Free Trade that the world has ever seen? Or how about the fact they laid railways, telegraphs, telephone lines throughout much of the world, bringing us closer to each other? Or how about the fact the British Empire drew the world closer towards a single economic system (the gold standard)?

This is what I am banging on about. Viceroys, Generals, blood, guts, Maxim Guns and Slaughtered Natives are the areas of British Imperial power which get advertised and dramatised above all else. Whereas the British gave to the world many fine things we take for granted. Far more interesting and useful than some wanton butt kicking no?

You've got me there. Though we did do a lot of arse kicking and bad things, these seem to take over the good things that the Empire did for the World. Though it shouldn't always be about the good, a balanced account should be made. For India for example, alongside Clive of India and the 1867 mutiny, people should also be taught about how the Empire actually united the country for the first time (ever I think) and how they stopped the custom of the wives being killed when their husbands died (I think that was India anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[Nyvin]

The day will come when the UK only exist in history books

 

[DAv2003]

Until the Four Horsemen ride across the sky, I don't see that happening.

 

[Hotpoint]

The day will come when the UK only exist in history books

Probably a true enough statement but the same can be said for every power, they all fade away eventually, but it's hard to argue against the notion that relative to size and population the impact of the British Isles upon world history has been extremely disproportionate.

In the history texts of 5000AD we'll probably get a thicker chapter than the one about our former North American colonies anyway

 

[Nobody]

The day will come when the UK only exist in history books

Nah, as long as the cricket world cup continutes the british will always exsist

 

[Rambuchan]

For India for example, alongside Clive of India and the 1867 mutiny, people should also be taught about how the Empire actually united the country for the first time (ever I think)

This is such BS man. If you read your ancient Indian history you will realise this. And you need not look far. The guy everyone bangs on about in ancient India - Ashoka - achieved this feat about, oh, about 2500 years before the Brits managed it. Morevoer, he renounced his 'evil ways', converted to Buddhism, spread the faith and went on a reconciliation track for the rest of his reign. The Brits are still pretending they are noble uniters of disparate people now, just ask any Sunni, Shia or Kurd.

and how they stopped the custom of the wives being killed when their husbands died (I think that was India anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Dig deeper. Did Indian women ask them to do this? Did Indian men ask them to do this favour for the nation? No. As a result you had women, who believed their life was worth nothing after her husband's death, having that nothingness being dragged on in a miserable life. As much as I don't agree with the practise myself I'm never gpoing to tell someone not to. The simple point is - you, I and indeed the policy makers in the British Raj had absolutely no idea what it meant to those women to be denied that death. Incidentally, it is a tradition that arises to stop women being raped by victorious invaders. I wonder how many Anglo-Indians (mixed race) owe their lives to this abolition of 'sati'...

Meddling with other people's beliefs with some kind of benign benefactor role in mind is always going to cause trouble. So stick to the less subjective points for good.Again, just ask any Shia, Sunni or Kurd in Iraq that.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Probably a true enough statement but the same can be said for every power, they all fade away eventually, but it's hard to argue against the notion that relative to size and population the impact of the British Isles upon world history has been extremely disproportionate.

Well, the Chinese have always managed to come back on, in the last 2200 years, after every major, catastrophic setback.

 

[Insane_Panda]

The Brits are still pretending they are noble uniters of disparate people now, just ask any Sunni, Shia or Kurd.

W00t! Divide et Imperia!

 

[Hotpoint]

Well, the Chinese have always managed to come back on, in the last 2200 years, after every major, catastrophic setback.

China is in reality perhaps more accurately thought of as several powers that occupied the same space at different times, with sometimes several centuries of near chaos and decline between them, rather than one continuous one.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Well, considering the Chinese today can still read the written script left behind by the 2000 old Han dynasty or even older, I'd say the line of continuance is very much present. It's still the same people - albeit with different administrations.

Compared with say, can the British today still read and understand Old English?

 

[Hotpoint]

Well, considering the Chinese today can still read the written script left behind by the 2000 old Han dynasty or even older, I'd say the line of continuance is very much present. It's still the same people - albeit with different administrations.

Compared with say, can the British today still read and understand Old English?

In cultural terms the Chinese have certainly maintained considerable continuity but I was talking in terms of Powers not countries or nations. The Han Dynasty were a Power but after they fell in 220AD it wasn't really until the Sui Dynasty rose in 581AD that there was a real Power in China again for example.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Yes, and my point is essentially that.

That the Chinese will come back from every set-back (be it the Mongols, or the Dark Ages, or what), to form a new empire. What's your point again?

 

[DAv2003]

This is such BS man. If you read your ancient Indian history you will realise this. And you need not look far. The guy everyone bangs on about in ancient India - Ashoka - achieved this feat about, oh, about 2500 years before the Brits managed it. Morevoer, he renounced his 'evil ways', converted to Buddhism, spread the faith and went on a reconciliation track for the rest of his reign. The Brits are still pretending they are noble uniters of disparate people now, just ask any Sunni, Shia or Kurd.
Dig deeper. Did Indian women ask them to do this? Did Indian men ask them to do this favour for the nation? No. As a result you had women, who believed their life was worth nothing after her husband's death, having that nothingness being dragged on in a miserable life. As much as I don't agree with the practise myself I'm never gpoing to tell someone not to. The simple point is - you, I and indeed the policy makers in the British Raj had absolutely no idea what it meant to those women to be denied that death. Incidentally, it is a tradition that arises to stop women being raped by victorious invaders. I wonder how many Anglo-Indians (mixed race) owe their lives to this abolition of 'sati'...

Meddling with other people's beliefs with some kind of benign benefactor role in mind is always going to cause trouble. So stick to the less subjective points for good.Again, just ask any Shia, Sunni or Kurd in Iraq that.

Well I did say I was unsure about the Empire uniting the country for the first time, I think I read it in a book somewhere... Ah well. As for the practice of Sati, maybe it was a good thing that the British Raj helped Indian women realise that their life could go on after the death of their husband.

 

[Rambuchan]

@ Dav: Well I'm happy to have shown you another actuality. I believe we will all learn a bit more about Ashoka, seeing as Civ 4 has him alongside Gandhi as an Indian leader. As for Sati - I'm always sceptical of one nation trying to change anothers cultural habits.

 

[DAv2003]

Me too, but not when there's a person's life at stake.

 

[Rambuchan]

The British Empire put many people's lives at stake. I don't think it as simple as saving lives. It's about imprinting your cultural habits and beliefs on another.

 

[Rambuchan]

Also may I suggest that those who often think my posts about the British in India are overly outspoken or vehemently put - then may I kindly recommend reading Gholam Hussein Khan. A great antidote to British propaganda and false histories.

 

[Hotpoint]

What's your point again?

The same as it ever was, that all Powers decline and fall. Whether a regional culture may survive and be integrated into a subsequent Power doesn't really refute that hypothesis